Ali, Saqib wrote: > > A rather interesting Blog post by Dr. Peter Woit of > > Columbia on the recent "Is Science Near Its Limits?" > > Conference. > > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=615
Crispin Cowan wrote: > LOL! I am reminded of the serious scholarly paper > claiming that the 64KB DRAM chip was at the maximum > possible density for the technology. Not learning from > his mistake, the same author published another paper > the next year saying that the 256KB DRAM chip was > really the limit. This time for sure! :) Then he > learned something and stopped. > > Predicting the end of any technology has always been a > very risky proposition, and almost always wrong. > Predicting the end of science itself strikes me as > absurd. Biology, biotech, and nanotech are on the verge of huge advances. However the most fundamental science of them all, fundamental physics, is stuck, has been stuck for some considerable time. But then, it has been stuck before. The nature of the subject is such that real advances tend to be infrequent but dramatic. The present stagnation is reminiscent of that of the 1880s and 1890s, which in retrospect was not stagnation at all, but rather preparation for what was to come. The anomalous superconducting gravimagnetic effect, which has been observed by numerous scientists, is fundamentally incompatible with our present understanding of physics. It foreshadows the next revolution in fundamental physics, just as the Michelson Morely experiment did in 1887. The second scientific revolution started in 1900, and in due course produced radical advances in technology, which are today, over a hundred years later, transforming the world. The anomalous superconducting gravimagnetic effect foreshadows and requires a third scientific revolution. If the third scientific revolution were to follow the same path as the second, we would expect understanding of the anomalous superconducting gravimagnetic effect to take about thirty years, technology resulting from that understanding to enter routine use in seventy years, and that technology to transform society in a hundred and twenty years, and as society is transformed, we should expect to once again hear people predicting the end of science, due to the fact that about a hundred years have passed without real advance in fundamental physics. _______________________________________________ FDE mailing list [email protected] http://www.xml-dev.com/mailman/listinfo/fde
